Current and prior art bicycle saddles are modifications of the first generation designs typically of the velocipede saddle first patented by J. B. Brooks in 1889 (U.S. Pat. No. 401,123). They have been largely unsuccessful attempts to satisfy a racing brief where the rider is in a drop or aero position, or a cruising brief, where the rider is in a substantially upright position. No prior art saddle thus far has managed to achieve an ideal three points of contact configuration to stabilise the pelvis so the lower limbs can do the work of cycling while at the same time providing comfort in the aerodynamic drop position. The issue wherein there is a loss of saddle comfort as the rider transitions between the cruising and the racing positions or avoids contact with the saddle altogether due to the inherent discomfort is particularly important in performance cycling.
The well-known “racing” saddle is universally smaller, narrower, lighter, sharper, and harder. It achieves the goal of weight reduction with little or no attention to comfort or anatomy. Prior art examples which sought to solve the question of discomfort especially when the rider is a long time in the saddle, so to speak, are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,448,676 ( Wyner et. al.), U.S. Pat. No. 9,039,082 (Truglio) and U.S. Pat. No. 8,973,986 (Marceleno). etc.
Few novice cyclists are happy to continue use of any of these examples for long rides. In fact, the saddle itself has been a major reason for people failing to take up cycling as a form of exercise. In tighter cycling circles, riders have been known to bear their weight on their coccyx by placing this part on the saddle nose or to simply stand up and not use the saddle at all. Besides alternating between the cruising and the drop or aero position, or alternately supporting their weight on the left and right sides of the saddle, cyclists have also been known to actually remain in the aero position until pain is replaced by numbness.
Furthermore, while there is some conflict in the research field regarding the incidence of pudendal and perineal nerve dysfunction and genital pathology amongst cyclists, the fact remains that the occurrence of perineal and pudendal discomfort in cyclists is almost universal. The proliferation of sales of bicycling shorts having extra padding for optimal pressure distribution confirms this issue. It is an extreme rarity to spot a serious cyclist doing any decent time or distance on a racing bicycle wearing ordinary shorts.
Prior art “comfort” saddles are bigger, wider and more cushioned than their racing counterparts, but still have a firm or hard nose. While they achieve better comfort in the substantially more upright cruising or standard position, this is at the expense of performance due to adverse aerodynamic factors. Comfort saddles are also far less comfortable when in the aero/drop position thus affecting their actual comfort value. Some comfort saddles with cut outs (e.g. WO 2012/107215) or no noses (e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 8,668,259) or a split nose, remain limited with respect to the ability to offer both comfort and performance and generally fill a niche market only for specific cyclists. One such version (US D767, 909 S, Ideal Saddle Modification), combines both a cut-out and a split nose. This particular saddle design allows for more comfortable upright cruising, but when in the aero or dropped position, the rider still ends up on a hard nose, although with the option of choosing which side of his or her pubis/pudendal region is to take the pressure. Irrespective of having a split nose, when dropping into an aero position, weight is still borne on the inferior pubic rami/pudendal region as in most other saddles. So while improving cruising comfort, there is no improvement when adopting the racing or aero position.
Furthermore, the nose of a saddle is very important in supporting the rider not only when moving in a straight line, but also when shifting from the comfort or cruising position into the aero or racing position. The presence of a nose is especially crucial to controlling the bicycle when cornering or undertaking rapid changes of direction under acceleration or deceleration wherein the rider's position must be kept relatively stable or fixed in relation to the saddle. The absence of a centrally disposed nose as exemplified in some of the abovementioned prior art, results invariably in a loss of full saddle control, wherein overall performance is thus unfortunately compromised.
There is therefore a need for a bicycle saddle able to provide support to all weight bearing pelvic structures in all cycling positions for long periods which is not an unsatisfactory compromise between the traditional cruising and current racing designs.
It is therefore a specific object of the present invention to seek to eliminate or ameliorate the problems of the prior art by providing a bicycle saddle which enables the rider to be comfortably and fully supported whether in the upright or cruising position or the more aerodynamic or racing position. In particular, the invention addresses the issue wherein there is no loss of saddle contact and thus control as the rider transitions between the cruising and the racing positions or avoids contact with the saddle altogether due to the discomfort experienced with inherently design compromised prior art saddles.